Proposal Under Review in the Chamber of Deputies May Alter Condo Rules Nationwide by Preventing Fines for Noise When the Noise Is Related to the Resident’s Disability, Especially Affecting Families with Autistic Individuals and People with Disabilities.
Residential condominiums may be prohibited from imposing fines for “disturbance of peace” when the noise is directly related to the disability of the resident.
This is provided for in the PL 5576/2023, which is being processed conclusively in the Chamber of Deputies and is currently awaiting a report from the rapporteur in the Committee on Constitution, Justice and Citizenship (CCJC).
On August 6, 2025, Deputy Nurse Ana Paula (Pode-CE) was appointed to conduct the report, with no final deliberation recorded so far.
-
Did your neighbor use your wall as support without asking and you only noticed later? See when this can become a problem, what signs indicate risk, and what to do before the situation worsens.
-
A bill could eliminate councilors in small towns in Brazil and replace fixed salaries with session allowances in municipalities with up to 30,000 inhabitants.
-
As the use of slimming pens grows in Brazil, a silent question arises among taxpayers in the 2026 income tax: why can’t these expenses be deducted and what specific detail could completely transform this rule into an isolated case?
-
He missed work to take care of his sick child, was fired for just cause, and ended up turning the tables in court with a decision that surprises companies.
What Changes for ASD and Other People with Disabilities
The proposal began with a focus on autism spectrum disorder (ASD), but was expanded to encompass people with disabilities in general.
The text under discussion prevents fines for noise only when there is a causal link between the behavior and the disability, preserving the other rules of condominium coexistence.
The version approved in the Committee on the Defense of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CPD) also included a provision that condominiums must ensure treatment compatible with the resident’s condition and seek a balance between the right to housing and harmonious coexistence.
How the Process Has Advanced So Far
The legislative path of PL 5576/2023 began in the Committee on Urban Development (CDU).
On November 27, 2024, the CDU approved a substitute bill from rapporteur Cleber Verde (MDB-MA) to clarify, within the context of the Civil Code, that the fine for “antisocial behavior” does not apply when the case involves a person with ASD.
Subsequently, the matter was sent to the CPD.
On May 20, 2025, the CPD approved a new substitute bill authored by Deputy Duarte Jr. (PSB-MA), expanding the protection to all persons with disabilities, provided that the noise results directly from the clinical condition.
Next, the project moved to the CCJC, where it is currently under review.
Practical Effect: Conditional Protection, Not General Exemption
This is not an authorization for any noise.
According to the text, the fine exemption applies only when the noises are an expression of the disability, as occurs in cases involving sensitivity issues, atypical behaviors, restlessness, or impulsivity.
Situations outside of this scope remain subject to internal norms and existing legislation.
The CPD clarified that the cited examples serve to illustrate the scope of the rule, without forming a closed list of diagnoses.
Statute of Persons with Disabilities Takes on a Central Role
Another significant change proposed by the substitute bill was to shift the normative axis to the Statute of Persons with Disabilities (Law 13.146/2015).
The inclusion of objective duties for condominium managers, administrators, and assemblies creates a benchmark for interpretation in disputes, seeking coexistence solutions before punitive measures.
In practice, the guideline directs condominium mediation when the sound manifestation is inseparable from the resident’s disability.
What Still Needs to Happen for It to Become Law
As it is subject to conclusive assessment in committees, the project needs to be approved by the CCJC to conclude its passage through the Chamber—unless there is an appeal to the Plenary.
Once this stage is passed, the proposal goes to the Federal Senate and, if approved without changes, to the presidential sanction.
As of the last official update, only the appointment of a rapporteur in the CCJC was recorded, with the status “awaiting opinion.”
There is no record of a committee vote.
Summary Timeline
In December 2024, the CDU approved a text that already restricted the imposition of fines for “antisocial behavior” in cases of ASD.
Subsequently, in May 2025, the CPD confirmed the protection line and expanded the scope to all persons with disabilities, conditioning the exemption to a direct link between the noise and the disability.
In August 2025, the CCJC appointed the rapporteur and opened the regimental period for amendments, which closed without presentations.
Since then, the processing page indicates that the opinion has not yet been delivered.
Guidance for Managers and Residents While the Project is Underway
Until there is a legal change, the internal rules of condominiums and the Civil Code apply, interpreted in light of disability protection legislation.
In disputes involving noises associated with a condition recognized as a disability, it is recommended to document the circumstances, seek mediation, and observe the guideline of compatible treatment that the substitute proposal seeks to incorporate into the Statute.
The stated objective of the rapporteurs was to prevent automatic penalties and encourage coexistence solutions, without removing the condominium’s ability to act when there is no direct relationship between noise and disability.
Impact on Families with ASD and Persons with Disabilities
If approved as is, the PL 5576/2023 is likely to reduce conflicts with families of autistic individuals and those with other disabilities by delineating the non-application of fines in cases where the noise is a manifestation of the condition.
Managers and assemblies will have a clearer legal framework, with guidelines to distinguish what is an expression of disability from what constitutes excess unrelated to this reality.
This normative distinction, according to the justification of the opinions, aims to balance the right to housing with harmonious coexistence.
How would your convention address a case in which the family presents evidence indicating that the sound manifestation is directly linked to the resident’s disability?

Pelo oque entendi, o som é permitido se for o deficiente ou autista que esteja o fazendo.
Porém discordo do msm jeito, imagina vc ser obrigado a ouvir um som (barulho) repetitivo o dia inteiro e nem poder reclamar, é de deixar qualquer um louco.
Portanto se isso for aprovado, quando vc vê uma apartamento ou casa em condomínio com valor muito bom, pode ter certezas que é por este motivo, vc não terá paz dentro da sua casa.
É pra acabar viu coloque fone no ouvido do indivíduo e pronto agora até obrigar as pessoas ouvirem som alto por causa de deficientes? Gente regras valem ora todos
Deficientes auditivos estão inclusos?